the shizzle > get involved: access, environment, BMC
Peak area bolting policy
shark:
Unfortunately I wasnt at the last area meet but jusrt received the area notes which include a proposed draft bolting policy (below). As far as I can make it this has been a personal crusade of Ian Millward as he has raised this at previous meetings.
To my mind this is matter for activists and individual situations sorted out at a local level rather than any top down policy.
It's to be discussed at the next area meet if you want to have your say on18th April 2012, 7.30pm at The Maynard. If you want to contribute to the discussion, but can't attend the meeting, then please e-mail comments to lynn.robinson@bmcvolunteers.org.uk
Peak District Limestone – Bolting/Fixed Gear Policy
This policy relates to new and replacement fixed gear on Peak limestone climbs. The Overall Policy applies generally; it is supplemented by crag-specific policies given in the crag introductions. Bolting is defined as the placement of any gear requiring the rock to be drilled – normally expansion or resin bolts. Retro-bolting is defined as the addition of new bolts to an existing route so that it becomes a sport climb.
Overall Policy
1) Respect for the crag and its environment is paramount in all activity involving fixed gear.
2) New sport routes, where allowed, shall not affect the character of pre-existing traditional routes. Should the possibility of interference arise, refer to 3) and 4a) below.
3) Due regard to the history, style and significance of pre-existing routes on the same crag, together with common crag sense, should help to guide future development. Bolting and retro-bolting of lines providing adequate natural protection - particularly crack lines - is not acceptable.
4) Retro-bolting, where allowed, shall require prior consideration of:
a) the views of the first ascensionist (if available) AND
b) consensus sought via BMC Peak Area meetings on a route-by-route basis.
5) Bolt renewal on existing climbs shall be on a bolt-for-bolt basis.
6) In cases where deviation from 5) is considered desirable and appropriate, approval shall be sought as in 4) above.
7) Renewal (where possible) of old/worn fixed gear (usually pegs or threads) that preserve the character and/or grade of traditional routes is generally welcome; but only on a like-for-like basis.
8. Where renewal under 7) is not reasonably possible and replacement with a bolt is considered desirable and appropriate, approval shall be sought as in 4) above.
9) Wilful removal of, or damage to, bolts/fixed gear placed in accordance with this policy shall not be condoned.
10) Concerns/disputes regarding fixed gear shall be resolved by consensus sought via BMC Peak Area meetings; notwithstanding that fixed gear blatantly contravening this policy may be removed/replaced without notice.
Example of a crag-specific policy:
Willersley Castle Crag
No new sport climbs. No retro-bolting.
Lund:
Shark old bean,
Not quite sure what your beef is here: I don't think it's necessarily a personal crusade (but could be wrong). This is the background which you may be missing. I'm paraphrasing the issue into the UKB style.
* There are some shit routes in the gower (shock).
* Some of these shit routes don't get climbed by anyone, even the locals. This is not just because they're shit, but because they're bold and bollocks. Easy-ish climbing, but on terrifying and loose gear. Lots are unrepeated, they're that bad.
* The locals want more stuff to climb on. A good way to get this, is to bolt these routes that nobody gives a crap about anyway, so that they're safe, and become slightly rubbish sport routes, rather than risk-my-life-for-that?!? routes.
So, the decision was made to bolt stuff. Everyone was asked via the area meetings and the like, and everyone thought it was a splendid idea. Everyone that is, apart from one (or two) first ascensionists, who couldn't bear to see their pride and joy get bolted.
Cue a huge argument over whether
* the first ascensionist gets to veto stuff
* the area gets to decide and nobody else gets a look in.
The debate is about getting some kind of "policy" in place to cover these, so that people know where they stand.
So there's the background.
Now, it's another question about whether the peak area has had this laudable agenda leveraged for personal gain or not. I have no clue about that.
Johnny Brown:
No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.
A policy like this is very useful when dealing with landowners. Increasingly they will be worrying about contravening conservation designations as well as any personal concerns. A policy will reassure them that any bolting is done responsibly and legally.
--- Quote ---To my mind this is matter for activists and individual situations sorted out at a local level rather than any top down policy.
--- End quote ---
Well maybe, but I don't see anything in the policy that would prevent that - in fact several points specifically refer to local consensus and individual situations. It would have been nice to see the policy presented first, and then your thoughts, but nevermind.
shark:
--- Quote from: Johnny Brown on March 19, 2012, 02:41:17 pm ---No, I don't think there are any people or routes being targeted here.
--- End quote ---
I think Jon Clark retro bolting Supercrack is being targeted for a start.
The BMC doesn't govern climbing activity and not all new route activists are BMC members.
I've placed bolts which would have been in direct contravention of this type of policy for routes which are now well established like Wil E Coyote at High Tor.
Sport climbing in the Peak wouldnt have got off the ground in the first place if this policy had been in place and adhered to/enforced.
shark:
To use Ken Wilson's phrase "It's the thin end of the wedge"
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version